Posted on 02/19/2016 6:36:53 AM PST by Enlightened1
Here is what the Constitution says about who can be president:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The problem is the Constitution doesn't define "natural born Citizen." Neither does any current law. And no one has ever brought a court case to decisively settle the question as a matter of US law.
There are three ways someone can be a US citizen. He can be born in the US (regardless of who his parents are). He can be born outside the US to at least one US citizen parent, as long as certain criteria are met (those criteria are set by federal law and have been changed over time). Or he can immigrate here and then successfully apply for citizenship, a process called naturalization.
Everyone agrees that the first category of people are natural-born citizens. Everyone agrees that the third category of people are not natural-born citizens (regardless of how unfair it might be that immigrants can't be president). But Ted Cruz is in the middle category, and this is where the meaning of "natural born" starts to get fuzzy.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
My framework is natural law, on which the constitution is based. The Scotus can over complicate the simple. How do you think Roberts preserved Obamacare?
These are not difficult questions. Some just find it necessary to make them so.
Yes. I was trying not to sink a foot into that swamp
*************
Saturday the position of finish will tell us a lot about the future of the race, imo.
We’ll know a lot about 8pm as the results begin to be revealed.
So you’re saying Cruz doesn’t possess a CRBA?
That has been discussed before. The birth on vacation would leave the child a citizen but not natural born. Maybe it sounds harsh for that child if not being able to be President is harsh, but the Constitution and legal judgments on the issue are that way for a very important reason.
As spelled out by the Founders a President needs to be without allegiance or influence from foreign powers. To guard against the above the sieve used eliminates those who fall between, such as the situation you described.
Suit yourself.
True, but in the absence of a formal certificate showing he was born to her, alternative evidence could be presented, uncontroverted testimony, hospital records, etc. That really isn’t the contested issue here. The facts of his birth situation are, as far as I can tell, being stipulated as true. The contested question is how the law views those facts, and in that area I believe he will do just fine.
Peace,
SR
So an amendment for every law change? Interesting idea
Yes and the laws have changed.
“Because Coulter is in love with the Donald”
That’s more explainable that Beck’s love for the Canadian.
That is true. I had not heard any such speculation and it didn’t cross my mind. I think Cruz may do fine because I believe our courts are corrupt and judicial activism is the norm. Cruz is not a natural born citizen without changing the legal meaning of the term.
Where is the official record for that action of ‘lost citizenship’? My understanding is that she claims that she lost her U.S. citizenship, but the claim is probably invalid. To no longer be a U.S. citizen, one must officially renounce or relinquish at an embassy and demonstrate 5 years of tax compliance, neither of which she has ‘officially’ done. to my understanding there is no such thing as an automatic loss of U.S. citizenship.
“so, if a couple goes to France on a vacation and the wife bears a child there, the child’s US citizenship.status.be ones clouded? I don’t think so.”
Is this couple married? Or is one an Islamic terrorist?
“US military bases abroad are American soil” Don’t think so. Guantanamo is a lease revocable at our option. All bases in Europe,Japan and South Korea are at the invitation of those countries and until 1985 at least, military personnel whose children were delivered abroad were told (perhaps in a permanent order) the children were not eligible.
The link below is what Ted will be up against in court.
http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/#
Pretty straightforward and easy to understand presentation about Cruz and Rubio’s eligibility to run for POTUS.
http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/#
Pretty straightforward and easy to understand presentation about Cruz and Rubio’s eligibility to run for POTUS.
The link also explains why the 14th amendment does not apply.
ARTICLE II, Sec 1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States
Where in this do we find a person must be born of two American parents AND born on American soil?
The source of my joy in this world No longer rests with 2no is in the scouts or who is in the white house. I see pretty clearly now the folly in looking there for the answers. They are no longer credible.
For me, it is like roulette. I don’t gamble but watching others play is fascinating. As I just said on another thread, this is the most interesting election cycle since I started voting in 1972, but it is akin to electing a new.captain on the titanic. The process and arguments, within The context of current events, are highly entertaining.
June and Ward Cleaver.
Suit yourself.
Already have.
;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.